Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

CB328
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone an America-hater for not wanting weapons of destruction in their business is crazy? Really the
obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of gun worshippers has gotten so far out of hand I think it is irreparable. Mad Max here we come:

now that he's gotten the free publicity for the resturant, he should now remove the signs so he can get another free piece of publicity for the
resturant chain. that way he's also no longer alienate anyone. And he'd get 2 for the price of 1 in free media.

CB328
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone an America-hater for not wanting weapons of destruction in their business is crazy?

I think it's crazy to call people names simply because they want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to self protection via the use of a
firearm.

And it's also crazy to call a self protection firearm in the custody of a law abiding citizen a 'weapon of destruction'.

Really the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of gun worshippers has gotten so far out of hand

Really, the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of 2nd Amendment foes has gotten out of hand. And to for enemies of the US Constitution and Bill
of Rights to call Americans who legally protect themselves via the use of firearms "gun worshippers' ... well that's pretty dang pathetic on their
part.

Unless those rules break the law ... the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Does his ban break the law? Maybe.
What if he decided not to serve black people? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve Catholics? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve Democrats? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve people in wheelchairs or with crutches? His restaurant, his rules?

In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.

Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.

Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a
social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.

beezzer
In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.

Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.

Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a social
acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.

Intresting and deffinatly something to think on.

Who freedoms take priority is the queation and when? Shop owner all the time? Customer all the time ? Or half and half and wheres the red line drawn

beezzer
In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.

Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.

Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a
social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.

And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a
law!"

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a
social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.

I think you just summed up 9 pages here on this thread, and other topics as well.

And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a law!"

The problem is do you want buisness owners to have the rights on what goes on there property?

If so would you want those freedoms to go as far as discrminating againt race and colour and going back 60 years to were blacks and other races can
barely live day to day?

Either you have to:
A) Acceptt the buisness owner has no rights and can not refuse service to anyone
b) Has some rights and can refuse service to some but not to others and if so were to draw the line?
c) Allow business owners to be able to refuse service to anyone and us much you have thr risk of some areas of the USA being impossibe to live in if
your are of a certain race or colour?

So its A B or C.

A B or C someones freedom is going to be restricted be it the buisness owner or customers.

So we have to make a choice who freedom is more important the customer or business owner? Or do we try and balance it so both have some rights and
some restrictions?

And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a
law!"

The problem is do you want buisness owners to have the rights on what goes on there property?

If so would you want those freedoms to go as far as discrminating againt race and colour and going back 60 years to were blacks and other races can
barely live day to day?

Either you have to:
A) Acceptt the buisness owner has no rights and can not refuse service to anyone
b) Has some rights and can refuse service to some but not to others and if so were to draw the line?
c) Allow business owners to be able to refuse service to anyone and us much you have thr risk of some areas of the USA being impossibe to live in if
your are of a certain race or colour?

So its A B or C.

You watch too much television. Nowhere in the US is there going to be "areas of the USA being impossible to live if you are a certain race or color"
if business owners were left alone to make their own decisions. C. would be the pro-freedom answer except you extrapolated a nonsensical end result to
it.

As it stands, we have a "B" position where it is obviously perfectly okay to discriminate unless you are of several protected classes. Either A or C
would be more consistent.

Less government and more freedom of choice would be the best approach.

The business owner should not deny service unless those customers have infringed on his rights.

Simple enough.

You don't have a right to deny business based on the colour of ones skin. You don't have a right to deny service based upon sexual orientation.

But if (as in the case of the bakery) the owner was forced to participate in a ceremony that went against his religious beliefs, he should have that
right to deny service. As in the case of the restaurant owner. He didn't discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation.

The business owner should not deny service unless those customers have infringed on his rights.

Simple enough.

You don't have a right to deny business based on the colour of ones skin. You don't have a right to deny service based upon sexual orientation.

But if (as in the case of the bakery) the owner was forced to participate in a ceremony that went against his religious beliefs, he should have that
right to deny service. As in the case of the restaurant owner. He didn't discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation.

Sorry but there are still some very ignorant and very racsist area of the USA who would jump on such freedoms to run every non white, no anglo origin
American out of town.

You watch too much TV.

Nothing more really to say.

Actually he doesn't. I was to the States(Northern state of Migh) about 10 years ago and was shocked at the racist attitude I saw there. I can't see
it getting any better in a decade. Racism IS alive and well.

no...the "someone" can get service, but not if he brings in a gun....did it every occur to you that maybe, he doesn't want any chance of a robbery,
domestic dispute, gang payback, nutcase to shoot up a restaurant to gain notoriety?.....

why do you keep arguing about this....to get more stars?...just to argue, even if it makes no sense?...ego boost?...open a restaurant and allow all
the gun carriers you want in it, if you are so freakin' passionate about this.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.